I'm enjoying this meme that we're all shaking in fear of Palin. It will be fun to see how many ways and in how many situations people will slip that in. It's like that old therapy trick, where someone tells someone else "You're in denial!" "No, I'm not." "See! You are! You just denied it!"

I'm not gay, and I'm not a woman. While I was listening to Rush and looking at his pictures, I was thinking to myself how statesmanlike and beautiful he looks -- in kind of a classical way. He should be wearing a toga. Then I read the comments, and thought how out of touch I must have become in my old age. He needs to lose about 30 more pounds for the sake of his health, but he's a very handsome man. He looks kind of like the guy who played the lion in The Wizard of Oz.

She won the governorship of Alaska by running against corruption in her own party, so why should it be expected that people in her own party can't be afraid of her, too?

I suppose for some conservatives who wish she'd go away it's a matter of being "afraid" that she's going to split the party, divide the base and weaken future chances for Republicans to win elections.

What if enough people listen to her?

And wouldn't that be what most liberals are worried about, too?

For all that a couple of our local persons insist that Democrats would *love* to have her run for President I really don't see any confidence that she's not a threat or any confidence that if she got the nomination that it would be an automatic win for whoever ran against her.

There are people from the last campaign cycle I'd vote for before her. Althouse mentioned Fred. I'd vote for Giuliani. Enough other people apparently wouldn't, or were convinced by others that *other* people wouldn't vote for them so it was all wasted... and we ended up with McCain.

(Which is one reason I've got no sympathy and no time for anyone on "our" side that spends time and energy using the same arguments against Palin. We'd be better off if people stopped making their decisions based on speculation about some other person's vote.)

Well of course Rush it is all speculation. You built an entire career in entertainment on that!You can not watch Sarah Palin's rambling, contradictory and ultimately bizarre press conference from Friday and not speculate about what is up. It clearly was not well planned and suggests that it was arranged to be preemptive.

Synova wrote"For all that a couple of our local persons insist that Democrats would *love* to have her run for President I really don't see any confidence that she's not a threat or any confidence that if she got the nomination that it would be an automatic win for whoever ran against her."

Well by all means call our bluff and make her the Republican nominee.I dare you.In fact I double dare you!

I see you working Beth - just because some anonymous assclown on McCain's campaign was abusive towards her, then all liberals are excused for abusing a woman who has the temerity to go off the reservation.

Hope the corrupt commies you elected are doing a good job reinforcing your levees. Oh, right, I don't give a shit about anyone stupid enough to live below sea level.

Well considering his campaign staff ran one of the most awful campaigns in recent memory, their opinions really don't hold much weight. I'm not familiar with other conservatives who don't like her.

But Beth you really have to admit, do you recall any other vice presidential candidate that has generated as much hate from the other side like she has? I mean it's 8 months after the election and liberals still froth over her. And please spare us the 'she's stupid' meme considering the complete moronic statements that Biden utters about every 7.9 seconds.

ZPS, pull an AL and pretend that the entire scope of the conversation is her recent announcement.

No clue what you're talking about...but I was being sincere. Let's say the media collectively apologizes for being so mean to Palin and they start from scratch. OK, so, how do they cover this person? Look at her record, look at everything she has done. How do they do it?

I love this idea that everyone is "attacking" her. How should the media cover her? What should they say about her?

I'm gladdened to read that you're curious about this topic. Let me illustrate, with examples even, how the press should exhibit professionalism.

Principle #1 - When specific information is available, then that information should be included in a press report rather than preferring a general description.

Example form this Associated Press report today:During a sometimes rambling statement, she cited ongoing ethics complaints and the financial toll they were taking on the state and her personal finances. She also blamed the media for sensational attention and attacks on her family, although she didn't offer details.

Let's note the injection of opinion on the quality of the statement, the rambling comment, but that isn't the worst offense. Here's the meat of the claim of lack of professionalism - the reporter notes ethics complaints filed against her and then reveals no further information. The implication is that the complaints are warranted and that Governor Palin is unethical. The reporter, being in possession of more specific information, such as the fact that all 15 complaints filed against her were dismissed and that the nature of many of the complaints were farcical, including wearing a jacket, holding a fish, etc, should have included this information into the report in that specific information is more valuable to a reader than general and vague information.

Secondly, the reporter notes that Governor Palin blamed the media for attacks on her family. This is general information. The reporter has a plethora of examples of media attacks on Palin to choose from so as to give the reader specific information.

Contrast the reporting on Palin with the reporting on Obama's Afghanistan initiative. This reporting is chock full of specific details:For the past four days, 4,000 U.S. Marines and 650 Afghan soldiers have been fighting their way into the southern reaches of Afghanistan's Helmand River Valley, hoping to clear out insurgents there. . . .

Now read the following statement and speculate on who is being quoted:The next step in the new Afghan war will be a comprehensive strategy that helps the Afghan government deliver the stability that comes from economic opportunity and a working justice system that allows Afghans to benefit from those opportunities. That kind of strategy, however, takes far more time than a military operation and requires patience - both for Afghans and the U.S. administration that is footing the bill.

That sure sounds like an Obama Administration official, doesn't it? Well, many of us would agree that the reporter who is editorializing his opinion here, is indeed acting as though he is an Obama official.

Narratives are being crafted and some of the tools being used are editorial techniques. Slanting and generalizing are deployed to marginalize Governor Palin and cheering and specificity are being used to champion President Obama, for his war in Afghanistan is different (that's the editorial slant) and then the specific details are marshaled to buttress that editorial slant.

Let's say the media collectively apologizes for being so mean to Palin and they start from scratch. OK, so, how do they cover this person? Look at her record, look at everything she has done. How do they do it?

As with any other Governor, or President, they can focus on political achievements and failures. What eluded every other Alaska Governor over the last 34 years was brought to fruition by Governor Palin, the pipeline deal. This is a huge political achievement in Alaska, as well as an achievement that will produce beneficial consequences for all of America. Reporting can focus on how she was able to bring about a deal that eluded her predecessors for 34 years.

Glenn Reynolds gives a lot of space (for Glenn) to some unknown person named "READER PAUL LEE" who thinks that Sarah Palin will try to start a new Tea Party in August.http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81381/

Glenn then expresses some doubts about Reader Paul Lee's theory. But I think that Glenn at least wants to believe it. Me too. It sends shivers down my leg.

"She didn't explain herself, and the assumption is that she can't; and that, she should have addressed.

Hence Dowd's take on it."

But you were able to say that Palin didn't explain herself, presumably because she couldn't, without resorting to phrases like "Caribou Barbie" and "nutty puppy". So, no, hence Dowd's being like Captain Ahab to Palin's white whale about it.

As to her "trotting out" her children (what are they, ponies?), men have brought their children onstage with them since forever and I don't remember the term "trotting" ever being used. Were they trotting them any differently than Sarah did? Could this be sexism from the left?

"OK, so, how do they cover this person? Look at her record, look at everything she has done. How do they do it?"

However they do it, they need to do it the same way for Obama, McCain, and Biden as well. I'd dearly love to see someone do a poll (broken down by age) on how many people who voted in 2008 know why Biden dropped out of the Presidential race in 1988. I'll bet you a month's salary that of the under 40 age group less than 20% know why. If you're reading this (not necessarily you as an individual, ZPS) and don't know what I'm talking about, look it up and then ask yourself whether you think this person should be holding any office. And if you're reading this and do know what I'm talking about and think it doesn't matter then you won't mind the consequences of living in a "society" where the Sec. of the Treasury is a tax cheat and the VP is, well, what he is. Fuck it. From here on out I intend to take full advantage of the "opportunities" such a "society" provides. As the Steely Dan song goes; "It's your game, the rules are your own, win or lose." When I don't pay my taxes or when I steal somebody else's work I damned well expect to get away with it. They've set rules, win or lose. And I damned well don't intend to lose.

I'm so sorry I've not been following the Palin saga and who's been saying what about her the past couple days.

The weather here for this weekend has been stellar. A little bit of light rain on the 4th in the morning when I was golfing with the son, but dry and very temperate yesterday for the neighborhood games, parade and potluck. Today I did laundry and had a 2-hour nap. Is there anything better than snoozing on a warm summer afternoon?

And I saw a hummingbird in the garden this morning, attending to the bee balm. That was before I walked on the bike path and ate black caps.

Today's thread proves the proverb that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The lib activists cannot see past Sarah Palin as being a silly and erratic female lost in the male political Big Leagues, and not able to leave the bare foot and pregnant women's quarters called Wasila Alaska. Tina Fey proved that was all there is to see in her Palin impersonations. On the other hand,the traditional Americans, who are married to another gender, and are bringing up their beloved children and grandchildren, see in Palin one of themselves being crudely marginalised by arrogant con-men and thieves that cannot hold a candle to Sarah in true emotional intelligence and in a special leadership style that combines a well dressed beauty who can stay compassionate under fire with a protectors heart that puts our well being first. The visionary Titus of this blog sees in Palin's style a lot more than her critics will give her credit for. It is true that she will have the albtross of evangelical christianity to live down in the academic/NPR circles. But she will be more than a winner by sticking to her guns there. All of the believers in other faiths also understand and admire a person with the honest faith that made America what she is today, and which in the time of a crisis is a rock to keep one steady and not a shameful weakness. When it's all been said and done, the strong Palin will be standing, and all of today's prophets of Palin's demise as a quitter who failed will only be seen as persons croaking out the wishful thinking of cowards who want a bold one to fail.

In fairness, we need some better way to differentiate fact gatherers and fact sharers from those that analyze and offer opinion. Think Shepard Smith on Fox as an example. While conservatives think this gentleman doesn't "fit". He is only trying to be Fox's version of the nightly news, and entertainingly neutral.

I am not sure exactly where this will all lead, other than where it has lead so far. EVER more analyzers and commenters than those bringing us "facts".

No wonder the AP is looking to make some money from this. AS THEY SHOULD! You too, Michael Yon.

Analysis and commentary are a dime a dozen. Fact finders? Not so much.

"(Rush) doesn't know what it means, but clearly a lot of people are afraid of her:"

scinfinity said... You don't spend lots of time and energy demonizing somebody you don't fear.

But WHY do you fear someone?

With politicians that are charismatic and attract Cults, like John Edwards, Obama, Sarah Palin, and Jesse Jackson - people's visceral antipathy comes from fear of what that person might DO - if they ever are in charge.

Obama kept his Cult, but Axelrod and other clever handlers made sure he said the right soothing words to lure in traditional ethnic Dems, moderates, independents, even Republicans that thought neither McCain or Palin was up to the job.

Palin is right where Jesse Jackson was. Have a solid Cult, but so intent on feeding the Cultists the right slogans so they become even more beloved in "the tribe" - they fail to address the fear and dislike by showing they:

1. Have the brains to do the job.

2. Can articulate thoughts past rhyming slogans or red meat slogans directed at their Cults w/o broadening their support elsewhere.

3. Can stick with a job rather than quitting. (Jesse bailed from races, declined shots at office, bailed from his proclaimed DC 'shadow Senator' position within months, quit working on "causes" he grew tired of. Focused on making Jesse Rich and being a media whore, and being a Power Broker for "His People".)

Titus...We Republicans don't think what a man and his horse do between themselves in the privacy of their bedroom is anyone elses business. There were rumors about Gene Autry's love songs to his horse, who many believe to have been an Argentine mount. And besides the don't ask. don't tell policy, we only see the definition of marriage to be at stake in the stud motels. Seriously,you either have to laugh or cry. Harvard Professors are leading the way as usual to develop the courses teaching our future leaders the "Ethics of Beastiality." So far Sarah Palin's alma mater has ignored this area of progressive education so desparately needed in Boston.

Why would we be afraid of Palin anymore? She just wrecked her national political career and has been a bigger laughingstock than Dan Quayle for quite some time now.

That said, it was totally rational to fear Palin before the last election, because this unqualified, unprepared woman came scarily close to being VP under an elderly prez. And now that we see how she quit as governor, it's even more scary to think how close she came to being Commander in Chief in such a dangerous world. The GOP were playing reckless with our nation and it makes me sick. But thank the Lord she'll never get there now.

Still can't wait to hear the real reasons she flaked out on her job. It can't be good, given how she threw that strange speech together in haste and gave it on the eve of a holiday. Sarah Palin's national political career may be over, but I'm sure she'll still bring the lulz for some time to come.

BTW, has Althouse ever posted negative commentary on Palin? I'm asking sincerely, because I don't read every post. It just seems like she goes out of her way to be kind to Palin in ways she doesn't do for other politicians. Is it because so many of her commenters worship Palin? Is it because she's under the influence of Paglia (who also shares Althouse's fondness for Rush)? Or did I miss a lot of posts where she's been critical of Palin?

While I gather you don't care for Palin, you really should come over some time and see tha altar I've erected. I think it's quite impressive. And if you can manage to coordinate your visit with my lunar calendar, you might even get to watch one of the blood sacrifices. Face it, with the full power of the Dark Lord behind her, you libs don't stand a chance in 2012!

Violet at Recusive Leftist tries to explore the depth of the pathology of the responses to Sarah Palin, something that some of the posters here still seem to be clueless about. The comments are interesting.

RL is a feminist site.

Of note is her claim that people could easily determine that much of what is foisted as being her positions are, quite simply lies. (And Violet is not a political supporter.)

I am wondering how much the blind hysteria about Palin is beginning to be seen by others than her fan club. That will make for a different landscape.

And MoDo should stick to her area of expertise. Oh. Right. She is. Over the top ad hominem. Tiring.

Jim: Talk about discrediting yourself with extreme prejudice. You've done it. I'd advise you against defamation, but insanity may be a defense a court would recognize.

What defamation? Rush was proven to be a massive OxyContin fiend. And, Palin's family is conntected with OxyContin dealers (Levi's mom), and media reports say one or more of Sarah Palin's children have been OxyContin fiends (Track, especially).

Despite Sarah Palin's and your wishes, we still have a First Amendment in the USA, and I don't expect to be hauled into court for posting my opinions on her.

But we have to be kind to the woman who tried to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists. She's such a nice woman and Good Christian who never says a mean or unfair word about anyone else.

"But we have to be kind to the woman who tried to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists."

Well, having one ghost write your political biography isn't necessarily evidence of an affectionate relationship. Or working in the same office for several years, redistributing public money to teach inner city youth about Marxism. But since the same terrorist launched the Won's career out of his living room, I'd have to go with "fan of ONE terrorist" here, Alex.

Sending a letter to Ahmedinejad making an appointment to negotiate AFTER Liesure Suit Larry got that election bullshit out of the way is "fan of terrorist" stuff in my book, too.

Note with Oaf that he isn't naming sources. No, he comes out and claims drug connections, then just restates his claim with no sources. Yes, I am sure that everyone in the fervid swamps of the wacko left side of the blogosphere knows all the specifics of this - except that, of course, there are no actual verifiable sources for any of this.

And, if we are going to go far enough out to pick up the other grandmother of Palin's grandson as an example of substance abuse, then maybe we should be looking a bit closer at the siblings, and half siblings, of Obama, Clinton, and Carter. And doesn't Obama have an aunt who is living in the U.S. illegally?

Oh, and isn't Track Palin the one who was off to fight for us in SE Asia (as well as one of McCain's boys)?

Do realize Romney is a QUITTER and therefore unqualified to run for President? Did one term as Gov, then quit.

And of course, Palin is sooo stupid. Sure she's been elected Gov of Alaska and selected as VP, but what's that compared to posting at Althouse or writing a column at the NYT's?

And of course, I agree high intelligence is very important in a President. That's why one genius POTUS had to resign (Nixon),the nuclear engineer gave us double digit inflation and unemployment (Carter), another Genius POTUS got impeached, and then there's the "Great Engineer" and the Great Depression.

We need high IQ people to run for office, maybe we could get Ginsburg or Chomsky to run.

"Other than that it's just my gut instinct telling me Palin would be a good president."

Me too.

Which is why the poltical establishment types are terrified of even the possibility of her entering national politics with her own agenda.

Letterman would be wise to upgrade his security. He'll probably be blamed for goading Palin into the fray, and do you know what? That might just be true.

Don't attack kids if you don't want to deal with mom. Forget Letterman for a moment, or even his asswipe writers. The entire Smart Folks establishment laughed and laughed, and then damned Palin for taking offense.

I have long thought that many Leftists are incapable of understanding family any more. Too many broken homes hurts, but once you've decided it's cool to kill your kids for your own convenience, or really any old reason at all - because you just can, there's a whole lot of reality you stop paying attention to - right up until it lands on you with all the claws and teeth out, of course.

They hate her. But it's out of fear first, and for the more honest of the pack, envy runs a close second.

"And, Palin's family is conntected with OxyContin dealers (Levi's mom).....But we have to be kind to the woman who tried to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists."

I'm trying really hard not to be abusive in constructing a reply, or to sound pedantic. Let's assume Levi's mom, who would likely have been Palin's COS if McCain had won (see, I can just make shit up too), is the head of the worldwide OxyContin cartel. Definitely a strike against the Wasilla Snowbilly. But I defy you to produce a citation for "the woman who tried to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists." OTOH, it is an undisputed fact that Obama is friends with an unrepentant terrorist (or "freedom fighter" if you're a seditious POS), and that he has deliberately tried to obscure that fact. He wasn't just some guy who happened to live in the same state or any other such bullshit excuse as was offered. They worked on the CAC together. Obama is a liar with regards to this issue. Why? Is it just possible that the great majority of Americans would be horrified and disgusted if they knew who Ayers was and how close Obama was to him? Try to imagine how totally unhinged you would become if the Wasilla Snowbilly had a friend who has estimated that 25 million Americans might have to be liquidated in order to bring about his Marxist utopia. Also try to imagine how many voters would know that fact about her friend. I'm betting the uproar would far exceed that necessary to force her out of the race. But if it's Ayers: [yawn]. Must be okay to hold such genocidal opinions because he's a hi-falutin perfesser. Remember, I didn't set the rules, but I damned well expect them to be applied fairly and uniformly. I'm sorely tempted to do the experiment. Publicly voice the same sorts of opinions Ayers has only coming from the lunatic fringe right side of the spectrum rather than the Pol Pot school of thought. I'd like to see just exactly how long it would take for me to be fired from my tenured faculty position. Give me one good reason why I should be fired and he shouldn't. In fact, give me one good reason why that seditious POS and his equally seditious POS wife shoud have ever been hired in the first place.

It's amazing that the very same people who think it's perfectly fair to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists get mad when you say Rush was an OxyContin fiend and Palin's family is associated with OxyContin dealers.

I'm just trying to figure out what's fair and what's unfair.

If I follow you guys: Obama is pretty much a terrorist lover. That is perfectly fair.

Anyone can do Google searches on Track, Levi's mom, etc, and see their problems with OxyContin. But I see that is out of bounds. I'm sorry, and I'll reform myself. I'll post all over the Internet that Obama is in love with terrorists and is not even a legit prez because he is not a U.S. citizen, and I'll get pat on my back by you guys.

I just wanna make sure my comments are nice and fair, as I fear I lost my "moral compass" -- that shit you right wingers are always going on about.

"It's amazing that the very same people who think it's perfectly fair to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists get mad when you say Rush was an OxyContin fiend and Palin's family is associated with OxyContin dealers."

And just who exactly are these people? Name names.

Or I can play the game your (dishonest) way and take you to task for claiming that Palin's hooked on OxyContin.

But I defy you to produce a citation for "the woman who tried to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists."

Palin ran all around the country screaming that Obama is a big pal of terrorists.

No he isn't. Obama doesn't aprove of or like terrorists at all. He's more serious about al Qaeda in Afghanstan and Pakistan than Bush/Cheney were (the Bush White House's own assessment found Bush's policies to be a failure with respect to al Qaeda in Pakistan).

But Palin is married to someone who is down with a secesionist political party in Alaska. Even McCain's own staff said she tried to lie about that.

As for the person hyping Track's service in the armed forces, the media reports suggest he was sent to the military due to his OxyContin addiction and other troubles with the law.

Track and Levi's mom aren't public figures beyond being convenient pawns to attack Palin with. They also don't have the opportunity to destroy the U.S. economy, either.

So pardon if I don't see any logic to your statement. Not that you ever honestly intended there be any.

Terrorist "lover?" I never said that. The public record is that he consorted with and received support from one. Whether or not they are swapping the soap is neither here nor there.

(Gee, if it came out that something like that was actually the case, maybe those dumbass LGBT whiners would STFU about DADT... Axelrod and Emmanuel have to fly that idea by the TOTUS, see if they could package it right...)

The One and Ayers were a team back in the day, and we only have a press release and the shield of press non-coverage to assume that Ayers and Obama aren't still working together.

So... I think involved with a terrorist is accurate. And timely.

And in a nation with its head out of its ass, a disqualifying fact for a presidential candidate.

Oh, I hear you, Titus, but since we have edged on into fantasy? (Way too easily, I might add)

I met a horse once. That by itself is not unusual. What was really weird was how much this horse looked like a horse! It had a shiney, well groomed tail, it had a toothy grin and even some nice shanks as I recall. It seemed ready for some mutual nuzzling, an apple and a nice pat on the behind to set him off to the pasture. Greener? Oh who knows.

Prior to this, I assumed all horses looked like that Jessica-Parker person. Her fist name escapes me?

"Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

Enough on that.

They also don't have the opportunity to destroy the U.S. economy, either.

Hey, smarty, the U.S. economy went down the tubes before Obama was sworn in. I guess that would make it...Bush's fault, not Obama's.

You, sir, are either 1) a liar; 2) misinformed; or 3) under the opinion that Ayers and Dohrn are not terrorists.

In any case, pay very close attention to what I'm about to write.

I don't think Obama would approve of bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol, a military installation, etc. I don't think Obama thinks we need to liquidate 25 million Americans to enact his agenda. I don't think Obama would dedicate a book to Sirhan Sirhan (anybody ever get Teddy Kennedy's opinion on that? Or is it asking to much for a "journalist" to pose such an uncomfortable question?). I don't think Obama would express approval and admiration for what Manson's lunatics did to Tate, et al. But it is an indisputable fact that his friends not only would but did. I question his judgement, and the judgement of anyone who doesn't shun those seditious pieces of garbage.

No, not enough on that. My last comment and then I'll shut up as I realize I'm making an ass of myself.

I'm not trying to connect Obama to events that happened forty years ago. I'm pointing out that he is friends with the perpetrator of those events. The fact that he doesn't find Ayers and Dohrn to be vile and disgusting excuses for human beings is what troubles me. If you don't mind a President with psychopaths for friends, then I bet you're a real hoot to hang out with.

But Palin is married to someone who is down with a secesionist political party in Alaska.

You mean the same party that elected a Wally Hickel to the Governorship in 1966 and 1990?

This party's support is much like the support enjoyed by Canada's Bloc Quebecois Party. Most of the voters who send Bloc MPs to Ottawa to sit in Parliament are not sending them there to advocate for separation, rather they're sending them there to advocate for Quebec-only interests, or Quebec-first interests. For instance, 70% of the land in Alaska is owned by the Federal Government and thus the citizens of Alaska have little to no say about land use decisions, which are made by bureaucrats and politicians in DC.

Do you prefer to argue from ignorance because your ignorance supports your bias, or do would you prefer to argue from facts and let the facts shape your arguments? To me it seems that you're preferring the former.

"What defamation? Rush was proven to be a massive OxyContin fiend. And, Palin's family is conntected with OxyContin dealers (Levi's mom), and media reports say one or more of Sarah Palin's children have been OxyContin fiends (Track, especially)."

CRA, 1979, with a healthy assist from Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd between 2002 and 2005. That's where you can start drawing the picture.

Use the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Justice department as a club to coerce banks into making bad loans...that was farce. But what the next three decades wrought was even worse. The institutions acted to protect their interests, and that meant making donations and lobbying for law with the end result that the Federal government became the guarantor of all the bad loans that were originally the fault of the regulators.

It isn't any one party's fault that we are ... maybe a quarter of the way down the stairs to the economic cellar. It was and is an institutional failure based on hack graft and corruption, driven by hazy progressive class war politics, and assisted every step of the way by a media comfortable fulfilling a narrative rather than doing a journalist's job.

Bush isn't the guy who will go up on a lamp post in the next few years. They should be building extras on the Mall right now, just to get ready.

We've seen NOTHING as far as this collapse goes yet. And The Won is still writing checks as fast as the Treasury can print cash.

In reflecting on my recent blathering, I apologize to LoafingOaf if I was needlessly combative, abusive, insulting, or unfair. I'm just so damned frustrated by it all, and certainly know less than I think I do.

I have been in the crazy farm twice. Not for drugs. Not for alcohol., but for being batshit crazy. Is that a reason not to take me serious? ever?

I also lived in a subdivision in a house which most families could only manage where both couples worked. Many of the people on the street where i lived were vice presidents of a fortune 500 company or doctors or lawyers and the wife worked, too. My former husband was middle management and i stayed at home with three boys. We had a credit rating that was near perfect because i took care of the day to day duties and never bought more than we could handle.

yet, I am batshit crazy.

Now i am divorced and no one would hire me for freelancing design or anything after seeing my blog and copying my ideas. I live on about `12K a year. Yes, i am batshit crazy.

The president and congress are spending money like crazy. The supreme court and lawyers are ruled with money in mind and not fairness.

guess, what i am bat shit crazy ,

but i think they are super bat shit crazy. because the country is a mess compared to my apartment.

Hoosier, my comment was in direct response to another, which said essentially that all the commenter knows about Palin is that liberals attack her. I added something else for that person to know - that she's attacked by more than just liberals.

Don't put words in my mouth, don't change the topic and then accuse me of not addressing what interests you. That's trolling. My comment was clear, to the point, relevant to another one, and that's it.

I am struck by how hard some people try to twist others' comments or opinions to fit their own agenda. That's some lame, weak-ass behavior.

The best thing I have read all week about Palin was from a blogger known as the Reclusive Leftist. She says

"My own reaction to Palin’s convention speech was the polar opposite. I can honestly say that, aside from Nixon’s resignation speech, Sarah Palin’s address at the convention is the only Republican speech I have ever enjoyed. Or even been much interested in. I don’t agree with Republicans on politics — not by a long shot — but as a person, I found Palin charming in a Harry Truman, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Erin Brockovich kind of way. How could you not? Especially after the goons had spent the previous weekend in a misogyny fest of lurid speculation and grotesque sexual insults about her and her family. I was proud of her for her courage, as well as for her personal accomplishments as a working-class regular person who went into politics and succeeded.

Her speech also delivered some welcome punctures to the national gasbag known as Obama. And that’s another thing: it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

So: are we back to Obama after all? Is this a transference thing? Are people subconsciously frustrated by the fact that Obama is an empty suit, and are they transferring that rage to Palin? "

He repeatedly uses the "media reports" lie when, in fact, no reputable media has ever reported any such thing about Track. The fevered swamps of dailyKos are awash with all sorts of lies and insinuations, but there isn't an iota of proof to back them up.

He knows all of this. He can't back up a single allegation against Track, but that's not going to stop him from repeating them.

Just consider the source, and give his lies all the consideration they deserve: absolutely none.

[Remember that this is the same crowd who was abosolutely sure that Palin was going to be indicted any day. Right up until the FBI proved that they were liars and vicious smear mongers. Whoops. Not so much as a mea culpa.

And he's still trying to push the "I'm sure there's something bad about to come out" BS. Yeah. That's some serious credibility for you.

"Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

But he had fund raisers and was close friends witht he people who did do all those things. So what if he "condems violence". What does that mean when he is willing to associate with people who did such violence.

And so what if he's lying about when the violence took place. Members of the Weathermen were actively committing violent acts right up until the early 80s. Coincidentally right about the time that Obamam first met Ayers. I'm not saying he took part, but this "40 years ago" stuff is an intentional deception to avoid the fact that he was hanging out with Ayers during the time that members of his group were still involved in violence.

But somehow Palin was wrong when she pointed out the obvious truth. Maybe if she experienced more of the alternate reality that the "reality-based community" lives in she would know that pointing out inconvenient truths about Leftists is "lying" or proof of being an idiot, or racist, or bigoted, or whatever epithet they're using that particular day.

Maybe if they didn't use it to describe everyone who disagrees with them, those words might have some meaning or sting left in them. But all it means these days is that you've hit a little too close to the bone.

This is amusing to watch people who can't defend Barracuda on the merits have to attack others. Look over there McCain's people were mean to her! Look over there Romney quit too! Look over there Obama despite being a state Senator and a Senator doesn't have much more experience! Look over there Obama is a terrorist sympathizer because he knew a guy so radical at the time that he was funded by St. Reagan's best friends!

Divert all you want, but America now see's Sarah for the dimwitted lazy quitter that she really is. Good luck with trying to "effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans. " or whatever that means.

Hey, thanks for the link to Reclusive Leftist. I read her whole darned post, and darn it. This was a feminist who was actually having her own thoughts. I couldn't believe it. And the comments thread was marvelous. Actual, sentient, human beings.

I didn't think they existed any longer. How amazing. I guess it's like that moment in Terminator 3 when John gets the call from the Montana National Guard, and there's still a human being out there.

Thanks! I loved it.

I'm going to post a link to her.

Someone already gave it (I think it was Crimso) but here it is again. Really worth a look if you are amazed that there are still feminists who actually want to be fair and think things through. Quite an amazing thing, really, you have to see it for yourself!

Invisible, you're conflating redirection with a refusal to accept abject hypocrisy. The defenses put forward here, as I am reading them, don't say "Hey look over there and not here." They're saying, the left has been defending much much worse and now thinks it has latched onto something damaging.

But time will tell.

Frankly, I don't understand any of it, including why anyone would pursue a career in politics, given the sheer hatefulness of it all. In fact, I have no interest in political science whatsoever. What does concern me, though, is the frothy spitefulness that comes across so clearly. But I'm glad you and others are so amused.

Frankly, I don't understand any of it, including why anyone would pursue a career in politics, given the sheer hatefulness of it all.

Agreed. Politics is unfortunately a blood sport that quite frankly I'd never put my family through despite my interest in it. But yeah, the hypocrisy probably is the more relevant point. To segway, the fact is that as anyone has seen on this blog, the Right in their name-calling ("The One") and their ad hominem attacks ("Socialist/Fascist") and even their attack on family members (Michele hates her country, remember that) are no wallflowers. Also, as its been pointed out Sarah has had no problem throwing hateful comments to her red meat audience when necessary either. To now act as though its unfair just seems silly and hypocritical when looking at the evidence on both sides of the aisle, which is why this won't work outside the base.

Obviously at this point, Sarah has attempted to sell herself up as some martyr and obviously some on the Right in their intense need to feel victimized by THE LEFT are buying. I don't think that this strategy is going to help either her become President or the Republicans to re-group as a national party, but I guess we should just sit back and let the pity-party dance the night away.

To segway, the fact is that as anyone has seen on this blog, the Right in their name-calling ("The One") and their ad hominem attacks ("Socialist/Fascist") and even their attack on family members (Michele hates her country, remember that) are no wallflowers.

Well, the best description of Obama's theory of governance really is Fascist socialism. Before he was elected, I think that a lot of us thought that he would turn out more like a communist/socialist (esp. given his friendship with Ayers and Dorne), but his socialism has taken on a much more Fascist tinge since he was sworn into office.

Of course, if you want to compare and contrast different brands of socialism and suggest one that Obama has come closer to than the Fascist brand, I would be interested in your arguments. A good place to start would be Hayek and his Road to Serfdom, written contemporaneously with the peak of Fascism and Naziism.

As for Michelle, I find it interesting that she is off limits, but Palins kids are not. So far, we have had one accused of having her mother's kid, then of having a drug crazed grandmother of the kid she actually did have, then having a popular late night host suggest that another, underaged, daughter be raped by a baseball player during a game they attended, and most recently, that the boy fighting for our country was addicted to drugs. But somehow, Michelle is off limits.

But she isn't, because she was being quoted accurately. If she didn't want to be attacked politically about what she said, then she should have just kept her mouth shut. She is an Ivy League lawyer, and should know how to do that.

Finally, calling Obama "the one" is no different than all the "Princess" comments we have seen here about Mrs. Palin. No better, and no worse.

Sarah Palin is a decent governor from a small population state. She's physically fit, a good role model for young girls, in a committed marriage, and a non-smoker.

She has religious faith, but hasn't let that overrule the rights of her constituents. Her feelings on gay marriage, birth-control and abortion are the same as our current President's.

Her political ambitions are great, and her political skills are fantastic for office in Alaska, but need more polish for the national stage. She's young enough that she will have years for that. A flagging McCain campaign picked her as a Vice President before she was ready. That's more of a reflection of the utter failure of the McCain campaign, as they needed to find someone charismatic and energetic enough to offer any chance of success.

She was and still is a fantastic fund-raiser. She does a fantastic job at personal appearances. She draws crowds of blue-collar conservatives. She appears to have boundless energy and an great attitude.

If we take her speech at face value, people were abusing an Alaskan ethics law to hinder her ability to govern the state. If we read it a layer deeper, Republicans were turning on each other and using her as an excuse for their failures. Though, I'd place more emphasis on how Republicans squandered their control of Congress and the Presidency during the G W Bush years. But that's just me.

ps. Titus, sorry you watched the Mr. Hands movie. I felt the same way when some bastard showed me the Budd Dwyer video without any warning.

Plenty of governors have resigned or been impeached. Palin is the 1st I've ever heard of simply to say "Fuck it".

Sorry, Cedarford, but as a Massachusetts resident, I can tell you about Bill Weld.

Weld was a popular and effective Republican Governor, elected in 1990, who quit in the middle of his second term for at-the-time obscure reasons. It turned out he was going through an apparently difficult and slow break-up with his wife, but most people were unaware of it, Weld being the low-key and private sort he is.

Everybody knew Weld had Senatorial ambitions, so it was no surprise when he ran in 1996 against John Kerry. Weld had remained in the Governor's office during the race, but he quit after he lost the Senate bid, turning the office over to Lieutenant Governor Paul Celucci, who was fairly well-known and popular, but no match for Weld in intellect, vote-getting power, or charm. A lot of us who were Weld supporters were very irritated with him, as it seemed the main reason he quit was that he became bored with the job of Governor. I think almost no one realized that his odd behavior was probably triggered by his rather private personal problems.

Weld then embarked on a bizarre campaign to have President Clinton appoint him Ambassador to Mexico. Clinton nominated him, but Jesse Helms, partly at the behest of Ed Meese, who had been investigated by Weld when he was U.S. Attorney, effectively blocked Weld's confirmation in the Senate. Weld then moved to New York to pursue his finance and law career and replenish his very old-money family coffers, depleted by his years of public service.

I think Weld wanted the Mexico appointment mainly to just get away from it all, and sort out his personal issues away from the scrutiny a Governor is always under.

As it turned out, Weld's resignation had the effect of ensuring Republican control of the Governorship through Mitt Romney's term, so it accomplished what Sarah Palin proposes to do in Alaska: Preparing the ground for the next Republican Governor, who would then have the advantage of incumbency going into an election.

So, yes, Bill Weld was a real quitter, not having anything like the serious problems of Sarah Palin.

And people ragging on Palin, especially other Republicans, should realize that Mitt Romney, while he didn't resign, might as well have, as it was perfectly obvious since day one that he was using the Massachusetts Governorship as a launching pad for his Presidential run. Romney was extremely irritating in this: It seemed he was out of the State more than he was in it, and showed a palpable distaste for actual Massachusetts politics, spending most of his efforts burnishing his policy positions to suit his national ambitions. A lot of us had been burned by Weld, and really resented another Governor who treated the job with disdain. If the Governorship of Massachusetts is that inconsequential, then perhaps the rest of the bloated and expensive Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is as well, and ought to be reduced to a part-time and low-paid status, as befits a State this size.

Hey, smarty, the U.S. economy went down the tubes before Obama was sworn in. I guess that would make it...Bush's fault, not Obama's.

Obama was a Senator. Feel free to name the policy he voted against that caused the problems.

As for the "He was only 8 when Ayers did what he did" nonsense --- I bet if somebody had G. Gordon Liddy as a close personal friend, even if he was not born during Watergate, you'd find that relevant.

And, Palin's family is conntected with OxyContin dealers (Levi's mom)

So, daughter's ex-boyfriend's mom is part of "her family"?

Does that mean Althouse is personally responsible for the families of anybody her children ever spent time with?

I also find it amazing that you hold Palin responsible for what her daughter's ex-boyfriend's mom did --- but have no problem with the assorted sleazebags the current President personally palled around with.

Despite Sarah Palin's and your wishes, we still have a First Amendment in the USA, and I don't expect to be hauled into court for posting my opinions on her.

You're publicly saying her son is an Oxycontin "fiend".

I HOPE you get sued.

But we have to be kind to the woman who tried to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists. She's such a nice woman and Good Christian who never says a mean or unfair word about anyone else.

Can you point to her saying he is a fan of terrorists?

He was FRIENDS with one. That is undeniable.

It's amazing that the very same people who think it's perfectly fair to say Obama is a huge fan of terrorists

Can you back up this claim just once?

Anyone can do Google searches on Track, Levi's mom, etc, and see their problems with OxyContin. But I see that is out of bounds.

Discussing unquestioned facts about the President and searching for dirt on civilians aren't actually that similar.

Try as you might, though, to believe they are.

I'll say it: I've heard, from excellent sources, that LoafingOaf is a pedophile. Several media sources have made the claim.

Now, you can't get mad since I have the same backing of my claim that you have for the claims you're making.

Palin ran all around the country screaming that Obama is a big pal of terrorists.

Is Ayers a terrorist? If not, why do you feel he is not?

"Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

Ironic. I bet that if somebody abhorred anti-abortion terrorism BUT was still friendly with guys like Randall Terry...their claims wouldn't be enough for you.

Call it a really safe hunch.

and even their attack on family members (Michele hates her country, remember that) are no wallflowers.

Mmm, look, honestly of all four people on the big tickets last time, i would have preferred palin to be president over the other options. She had more administrative experience than all of them combined. Certainly she couldn't have done worse than Obama has.

But... I can't see this as any kind of brilliant political move. Remember Ross Perot. Perot had a real chance at winning it, until he did something that destroyed him: he quit. sure, he came back a few weeks later if memory serves but after that he lost any chance at viability.

So if she is a political animal, she just did something stupid. So i have to assume she didn't do it for political reasons. Really all things considered, I think she is actually quitting.

Which on one hand i can completely understand. I mean if you look at all the feces dumped on her since she dared have the temerity to harm "the one" by existing, you could understand why any normal person might say "who needs this?"

But on the other hand, there is something to be said for deciding not to let the bastards win. The best revenge on Letterman, for instance, wouldn't be an apology, it would be becoming president. I can't help but join the chorus of people who say that her dropping out sends all the wrong messages to the ugliest parts of the political spectrum.

And please, if you don't think she faced an unprecedented amount of shit for a candidate, you are probably one of the people who gleefully dumped it on her.

Well, the best description of Obama's theory of governance really is Fascist socialism. Before he was elected, I think that a lot of us thought that he would turn out more like a communist/socialist (esp. given his friendship with Ayers and Dorne), but his socialism has taken on a much more Fascist tinge since he was sworn into office.

Bruce, if you can't describe his policies easily as one thing or another, I believe that this pretty much proves, on its face, that we aren’t dealing in actual facts but with petty descriptions of characterizes and beliefs used to substitute for substance. Look it up, that’s what an ad hominem is.

Mussolini was a fascist, Lenin was a communist and Hugo Chavez is a socialist. Obviously, you know so little about what actual socialism, communism or fascism is that depending on some feeling in your gut you think that you can label Obama as one another. You only display your ignorance and your inability to critique your political opponents substantively with rambling posts like your previous one.

Is it your position that the current Economic problems are the fault of the Senate -- because of something they did or did not do?

Do I think that the Congress is responsible, largely, for the economic policies passed?

Yeah, I actually do.

...given that the President can't cut a tax, raise a tax, or spend a dime without their permission.

Mussolini was a fascist, Lenin was a communist and Hugo Chavez is a socialist. Obviously, you know so little about what actual socialism, communism or fascism is that depending on some feeling in your gut you think that you can label Obama as one another.

Mussolini was an ardent Socialist who started the Fascist party following a fallout with the Italian Socialist party over World War I (a war supported by many ardent "progressives", such as Mother Jones).

Mmm, as for the fascist v. socialist issue, um, isn't this all a silly game of definitions? Isn't the issue the strangling of freedom and whether you call a freedom-strangler a socialist, fascist, communist, or whatever, well, who cares? I mean does anyone say, "well, sure, i am being tortured for criticizing the government, but thank God its not by fascists?" i think the destructon of freedom is the destruction of freedom is the destruction of freedom.

Now those of us who work in the trenches are taken aback by the gleeful way the Obama administration is intruding into the economy, which is a kind of destruction of freedom, but its not like as if i am about to be arrested for critiquing "The One." And of course people say worse things about him all the time.

I mean the sound of the destruction of freedom isn't typically a bunch of people whining about their loss of freedom. the sound is usually nothing, as in silence, because you are not even free to say that. i remember jousting with dems during the bush administration, and hearing them constantly complain that they can't criticize him and i am like "well, I assume you are writing from prison, where you were thrown for criticising him, right? Because otherwise, you are a person free to speak your mind and have chosen to use that freedom by being a drama queen."

Whatever other limitations she might have, Palin is a genius when it comes to self-interest. Without knowing the specifics of her decision, I am confident that her resignation is the best choice for her, whether the primary motivation was for her family or her professional ambitions.

The speculation is natural and has been, for the most part, reasonable. The most lurid idea I have seen was Rick Sanchez's suggestion that she might be pregnant again.

I mean, Andrew Sullivan's head would explode, but if he suddenly died, the sanity and the intelligence of the blogosphere would take a giant leap upward, so that ain't something i am very worried about.

The fatal flaw of fascism is its lack of a succession of power system, except for murder by police state violence with requisite Show Trials for the defeated to confess their Crimes before being killed. Other than that and the inability of the Supreme leader to operate by delegation to trusted men under him (because he fears everyone), fascism works just great...ask their propaganda apparatus. Too bad for America that Obama simply does not care what happens to anyone except a small cadre of New Aristocrats. He does empathize with Chavez and Ahamadinegad because he faces their same problems caused by his chosen style for governing in America as they do in Iran and Venezuela.

The blame should ultimately rest on the voters who keep them putting them there. As Walt Kelly would say....

Anyway, if you think Congress is responsible for Economic woes, stop blaming the President.

I think a better tack would be to analyze what is and is not working, and then convincing Congress that the analysis is correct. It is unfortunate that there are so many others in Congress that are working to pursue their own goals. The whole thing stinks, which is why I vote against incumbents whenever possible.

Madison man... Palin has nothing more to do with the current corruption in Congress than Andrew Jackson had to do with the Bank of the United States that a corrupt Congress had created prior to Jackson's running for national office.

F.A. Hayek in his great book The Road to Serfdom argues that socialism is always fascism, and that socialism always lead to a one-party state, because it's the only way they can ram through the redistribution of wealth that they so desire, and then make sure the wealth remains redistributed.

Hayek taught at the University of chicago. His book sold a million copies in the 40s. It's a hard read, but he clarifies all these issues.

He argues that Hitler's thought came out of socialism, and that Nazism -- National Socialism -- was identical to Stalin's communism. It was the same thing.

Liberalism, which he defines as being about the individual, is totally against collectivist thought. He does a very good job of clearing up all these definitions. I wish people would read that book again.

The way we use "liberal" now is to lump it with socialism, but it shouldn't be lumped in that manner. Liberalism is about freedom for individuals, plus it's about laissez faire economics (using Adam Smith and John Locke).

Socialism, like fascism, is about collectivist thought, with a single party state, ruling in perpetuity.

F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom clears all that up, and shows how already in the 1940s these definitions were slipping, partially because the socialists were pretending to be liberals in this country, and in England, in order to seize power and begin their redistribution plans, which is well under way in this country, but still faces a strong opposition.

"The way we use "liberal" now is to lump it with socialism, but it shouldn't be lumped in that manner. Liberalism is about freedom for individuals, plus it's about laissez faire economics (using Adam Smith and John Locke)."

Dead on. It's the reason that I use the term "Leftist" when posting about the current policies of the Democratic Party rather than the more common "liberal."

Many Democrats claim they're liberals, and too many Republicans inaccurately describe them as such. To say they are liberals is to give them credit for beliefs they do not hold. Thay are statist, authoritarians: not individual freedom.

The number of actual "liberal" Democrats is exceedingly small, and restricted to the rank-and-file. There is no doubt that the leaderships of the Democratic Party and the their attendant special interest groups are Leftists.

Don't put words in my mouth, don't change the topic and then accuse me of not addressing what interests you. That's trolling. My comment was clear, to the point, relevant to another one, and that's it.

I am struck by how hard some people try to twist others' comments or opinions to fit their own agenda. That's some lame, weak-ass behavior.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm sorry you feel I exhibit lame weak ass behavior. I'll spare you from it in future discussions.

"If she isn't governor, its much harder for Obama and the democrats to investgate her."

Joe The Plumber might disagree.

"erhaps if he stopped naming czars"

I've become very irritated with the use of the term "czar." The U.S. equivalent to Czar would be the title "President." More apt terms might be "Rasputin" (as in Drug Rasputin or Compensation Rasputin) or perhaps "Reichsmarshall."

It's clear that the sophomoric (a term I only ever use in the true tense of the roots of the word) people of the last eight years who wailed about that Fascist Bush can't or won't see that the current government's overall economic goals are by definition Fascist. I'll let others decide what other aspects of Fascism can be accurately applied to either Bush or Obama.

Hayek taught at the University of chicago. His book sold a million copies in the 40s. It's a hard read, but he clarifies all these issues.

Yes, because if Hayek said so it must true. HE SOLD A MILLION COPIES! IN THE 40'S!. He's like a tenured, Conservative Jesus that guy.

Seriously, "individual freedom" from people who bought Bush's bag of goods that warrantless wiretaopping was teh best idea ever. People who worship at a television station, where the headliner wrote "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism". I'm glad you and Hayek's animated corpse are there to explain what a liberal is.

> Seriously, "individual freedom" from people who bought Bush's bag of goods that warrantless wiretaopping was teh best idea ever.

Mmm, don’t look now, but “The One” apparently agrees.

Oh, and warrantless survelliance has been done since the beginning of the republic. So please stop being such a drama queen about it. “Oh! Oh! I am so oppressed. Because people are listening to me! I can’t stand it!”

Pure speculation. Palin is going to start a new national party with the goal of making inroads with midterm elections in 2010, 2012 and 2014 with her eyes on 2016 (maybe 2012, but hopefully she understands that a grass roots movement needs time to incubate.)

I'm actually not a huge fan of Palin, but if she does this AND if it concentrates on being a new federalist party, I'll join. If it concentrates on being an evangelical movement, I'll stay away.

You need to pay attention to your own questions. You asked why conservatives felt she was overly investigated. There is a perfect example. Firing the man who threatened to murder your father from the police force. OMG! Investigate her!

So be careful who you call a dummy.

Or are you too slow to understand that many of those kinds of questions become mooted when you leave office?

I honestly hope the Repubs nominate her in 2012. That would be excellent because it would be a historical drubbing of a candidate that sums up the modern Republicant Party.

Fred Barnes is not impressed: But personal magnetism is only one of the legs, or underpinnings, for a successful race for the Republican nomination. The other two are experience in office and enough knowledge of foreign and domestic issues to talk about them persuasively. By stepping down, she's cut her experience short: it now consists of a meager two and a half years as governor of a thinly populated state. And, from all appearances, Palin has made little headway on the issue track. .

There is a reason why Palin is Enemy #1 and somebody like Ron Paul isn't. There is a reason why conservatives don't spend a lot of time making sure every inane thing our current mentally deficient VP says --- because who on God's Earth takes Biden seriously?

She is a cypher in the world of intelligence and her political "instincts" are about as refined as a pig at the trough.

I could mention that she pretty clearly explained what Obama would end up doing in office far better than most of his supporters did.

Much as I respect our host here, Palin understood Obama's actual policies better than she did.

The "intelligent" conservatives like Brooks, Buckley, and Parker who mocked her for being such an idiot about Obama are slowly learning --- OK, Parker isn't, but she is a true moron --- that Palin's comments about Obama under-estimated what he wanted to do.

It's ironic watching the Left demonize somebody who ended up being correct. We saw McCarthy demonized for being, honestly, spot-on accurate and have patently false things claimed about him...the Right isn't going to sit back and watch it happen again.

Even Fox News has started to turn on Sarah Palin. In the midst of a segment about the Alaska Governor's battle against "liberal" attacks, Liz Trotta went off-message.

Frankly, "the woman is inarticulate, undereducated," Trotta said, arguing that for once liberal criticism was "well-deserved."

"I think all the liberal stylists ... really have a case. She just begs for adjectives like flaky and wacky." When pressed, she added, "We're talking about somebody who, right from the get-go, has been a flashy person who gets into a lot of trouble and really has no credentials for any job."

Hoosier, I apologize for the characterization. But please, support your assumption that I would pull out "she's stupid" as a comment on Palin. I hate, hate, hate the way the Palin threads turn into baiting, trolling, and all sorts of ugly accusation throwing. My comment was quite specific, and I am determined not to be herded in a direction I don't intend to go in, or cast as holding a view I don't hold, for the benefit of someone else's desired point. I'm not going to be your strawman, in essence.

Palin holds a press conference one day and the very next day releases this self-pitying statement:

"How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."

So, she spends her entire time talking about herself (or how the troops have something to do with her resignation) and then whines that people think it was about her!

My comment was quite specific, and I am determined not to be herded in a direction I don't intend to go in, or cast as holding a view I don't hold, for the benefit of someone else's desired point. I'm not going to be your strawman, in essence.

You are correct and it is I who should apologize as I shouldn't have done that. Its just that questioning her intelligence based upon the same kind of gaffes every pol makes seems to be the boilerplate reponse. I should not have done that with you and I stand corrected.

Um, one, in case you missed it, Fox news allows for a diversity of views, which is a little different from the other networks. So one fox news analyst saying something that by the way doesn’t seem actually true is meaningless. I mean I love this one:

> no credentials for any job

Wow, the cognitive dissonance you display by posting her comment is amazing. People have been saying for over a year now that Obama had not credentials to be president, that he would be untested, that other leaders would test him (his running mate said that one), and that he would have no idea what to do. And guess what? They were right. Obama has not done one sharp thing since he entered office. Could Palin have done better at his job? Honestly, I don’t know how she could have done worse.

The only nice thing I can say about obama is that after he does something really, really stupid, he has very often changed his mind. Dontchya feel better?

> And when did saying someone is a quitter...rank as a form of "demonizing?"

Straw man. And if you don’t know about the actual demonization that has been going on, then surely this is news to you too: Michael Jackson is dead.

In a yet another completely tone-deaf move hailed by GOP sycophants as cagey, Sarah Palin complained about the mean ol' bloggers chasing after her and sic'ed her lawyer after them, threatening lawsuits. Palin's lawyer, in point of fact, put out a four page letter (.pdf) outlining the "defamatory" charges against his client that would embarrass a first semester law student.

One of those in Palin's crosshairs is blogger Shannyn Moore. Shannyn has one message for Palin: Bring it on.

"On the Fourth of July, when Americans everywhere were celebrating our most sacred national holiday with parades and barbeques, Governor Sarah Palin was busy having me, Shannyn Moore, declared an Enemy of the State.

In a rambling quasi-legal letter, the most powerful person in this state accused me of defaming her for pointing out the fact that there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years.

When Sarah Palin gave her three-weeks notice to the people of Alaska, aborting her term as Governor, a lot of people wondered why she quit. Mid-level managers turn-in their notice, not elected public officials. It didn’t make sense. It still doesn’t. People have been trying to guess why she really quit, and everyone in Alaska has been playing the guessing game. They’re rumors. There are a lot of rumors. And with all the corruption we’ve had here in Alaska, of course we wonder what’s really behind her resignation.

Governors don’t just quit. But Governor Palin did.[..]

Sarah Palin is a coward and a bully. What kind of politician attacks an ordinary American on the Fourth of July for speaking her mind? What’s wrong with her? The First Amendment was designed to protect people like me from the likes of people like her. Our American Revolution got rid of kings. And queens, too. Am I jacked-up? You betcha. Sarah Palin, if you have a problem with me, then sue me."

Yes. One person saying something negative is a network going after her.

Now, if you said MSNBC, then yes, you'd be accurate.

But the odds of you being accurate are, well, nil.

In a yet another completely tone-deaf move hailed by GOP sycophants as cagey, Sarah Palin complained about the mean ol' bloggers chasing after her and sic'ed her lawyer after them, threatening lawsuits.

GO SARAH GO!

Defamation is not legal. It should be dealt with. Sue them into oblivion.

I just find it funny watching a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome like Jeremy calling anybody dumb.

Evidently neither you, nor Shannyn Moore has the first clue about defamation law. Here's a cut and pasted selection for you:

Some people think they can repeat false information as long as they say it is a rumor or they can’t swear it’s true. That doesn’t protect them from a defamation suit. For instance, where a corporate chairman notified the board of rumors circulating about the corporate president, to the effect that he was rumored to have engaged in an insurance kickback scheme, and the rumors eventually left the workplace and were heard at a credit union convention, the corporation was held to be liable for defamation. Where a competitor spread rumors about a businessman that he suspected the businessman was bankrupt, he was liable for defamation.

Even the implication that a person left under a cloud can be defamatory. In one case, where a lawyer was described as having “suddenly resigned”, the terminology implied that he had left under a cloud of suspicion or scandal which harmed his professional reputation, and was determined to be defamatory.

Before you open your trap on a subject of which you have zero understanding, both you and Shannyn ought to understand that not everyone else shares your ignorance.

Jim Palin would never actually win a defamation suit against anyone at this point. People said and wrote a lot of nasty things about her [I'll agree] but people have said worse about others - Bill and Hillary, for instance, were accused of murder. So while technically your legal posting is of interest the stuff said about Palin is not enough [in my opinion] to constitute a successful lawsuit.

Palin would never actually win a defamation suit against anyone at this point.

Well probably any public official probably can't but reading Moore's whine fest about being silenced on the fourth of July was funny. I mean I really laughed out loud listening to a leftist getting her panties in a twist over that.

I mean its not like Palin had her people go out and dig up dirt on her, have government officials open up records on her or anything.

But that's where political discourse is nowadays plus you can say anything you want about someone and couch in as a rumour or from 'an anonymous source'. Considering how much of the 'news' over the last decade has been flat out fabricated Moore just shows herself as a typical hack who just likes to throw shit on the wall. I guess that's the equivalent of journalistic performance art.

"So while technically your legal posting is of interest the stuff said about Palin is not enough [in my opinion] to constitute a successful lawsuit."

It may or may not be. I'm not enough of a lawyer to say definitively one way or the other. However, it's a pretty clear standard that Moore broke.

The primary hurdle in a defamation suit is proving the malice. Given that the woman is employed by the political opposition and her prior history with Palin as well as what she's said on the subject since, I think that's a pretty easy hurdle to clear. I highly doubt that anyone could seriously argue that she was acting as a "journalist" rather than as a partisan attack dog.

With reference to elected officials, there is a different standard in order to protect journalists doing legitimate investigative work and to allow for legitimate political discourse. That necessitates a slightly different standard than for a private citizen. However, that standard doesn't give carte blanche license to anyone to print any lie they choose to fabricate whether they disingenuously hide behind 'rumors say' or not. I'd be interested in any citations which prove otherwise, but I find it difficult to believe that such a law exists.

Moore's whining primarily consists of "I said 'rumors,' so I'm untouchable." That, in fact, was the position that Alpha and others have taken in her defense as well. My point in the previous post was to show that it's a bogus defense based on a complete lack of understanding of defamation law.

Lawsuits aren't always just about winning and losing. Even an unsuccessful lawsuit can be just as good as a successful one. Given what defamation actually is as opposed to what Moore and her defenders say it is, Palin has - at the very least - the grounds to file a defamation suit. It might ultimately be unsuccessful, but it would certainly include a right to full discovery of Moore's own contacts with the Democratic Party, what they knew, what role they had - if any - in passing along those rumors, etc.

I suspect that Palin knows full well to what extent the Democratic Party participated/pushed Moore in her blog postings and that the "threat" issued was primarily a reminder to them that they were vulnerable on this issue if they continued to push those rumors.

On a final note, just because Bill and Hillary didn't sue doesn't mean they didn't have a case. My guess is that the reason they didn't sue is because there were so many other skeletons in their closets (Rose Law Firm, cattle futures, etc.) that they knew that the discovery process would wind up being far more damaging than simply marginalizing their accusers and discrediting their claims. They chose the politically expedient route, but I don't recall anyone ever actually asserting that they didn't have the right to seek legal redress if they had chosen to pursue it.

[Before the Leftists get started, Palin doesn't have the same option because the Clintons had a media that was ready and willing to help marginalize their attackers. Palin, on the other hand, has no such advantage.]

If a plaintiff achieves the desired result, then for them it is a good case. Forcing discovery on Moore and the Democratic Party would undoubtedly reveal a whole lot of nastiness that they don't want to see the light of day. It's the very same reason that many companies settle lawsuits out of court - especially the tobacco and asbestos companies. It's not that the necessarily think that they couldn't ultimately prevail, it was always the discovery process they feared. Just look at the hay that the anti-tobacco ads from thetruth.org (?) are making from the discovery from tobacco executives. You may not like it, but I'll bet there are a ton of lawyers who have filed similar suits and gotten out of court settlements based solely on the threat of discovery who could explain it to you if you still don't understand the concept.

"Clintons had a friendly press. The same press that attacked him as he continued to have high approval ratings throughout the blow job scandal."

First, you mean the perjury scandal. Let's not mix apples with oranges. Second, they may have criticized Clinton's personal foibles but groups like NOW and the like were always there to support his presidency. Much like Obama, they were invested in a Democrat sitting in the White House. The difference was that then they at least pretended that they were objective, now the facade is stripped away completely.

Trad Guy: "On the other hand,the traditional Americans, who are married to another gender, and are bringing up their beloved children and grandchildren, see in Palin one of themselves being crudely marginalised by arrogant con-men and thieves that cannot hold a candle to Sarah in true emotional intelligence and in a special leadership style . . ."

As a traditional American male who has been married to my wife for 40 years, raised two self-supporting children and is now enjoying my grandchild (with, it is hoped, more on the way), I could not disagree with you more strongly.